Where Have You Gone, Gregory Peck?

Last weekend saw a lopsided box-office collision of two very different types of action hero: In one corner, The Expendables, an old-fashioned 1980s-style action-fest drenched in testosterone, adrenaline and blood; in the other corner, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, starring Michael Cera as a geeky slacker with mad video-game-style combat skills.

It’s a stark illustration of how much the action landscape has changed. A quarter of a century ago, action heroes were musclebound, lantern-jawed he-men like Schwarzenegger and Stallone who weren’t afraid to get down and dirty. Even more vulnerable heroes like Harrison Ford and Bruce Willis, who actually got hurt or scared and made mistakes, were still two-fisted tough guys.

The musclemen of the 1980s may have been an exaggeration of an earlier masculine ideal, but prior decades were hardly lacking in virility. Broad-shouldered, chiseled icons like John Wayne, Gregory Peck, Sean Connery, Burt Lancaster and so forth might not have been built like Schwarzenegger or Stallone, but they were no pantywaists. Not all male heroes of yesterday necessarily fit that brawny mold—there was also room for more sensitive types played by the likes of Jimmy Stewart or Henry Fonda—but there was plenty of brawn to go around.

The situation today is markedly different. Many action movies today star youthful-looking actors like Matt Damon, Orlando Bloom, Brendan Frasier and Leonardo DiCaprio. Even comparatively older stars like Tom Cruise and Brad Pitt still come off as aging boys rather than manly men. There’s Tobey Maguire’s gawky web-slinger and Robert Downey Jr.‘s immature playboy techno-warrior. (Notably, Damon, Maguire and Downey all play heroes who in one way or another find themselves with awesome powers that they must learn to use and/or don’t understand at first.) William Shatner’s signature role now belongs to boyish Chris Pine. Earlier this summer there was a sequel to the Schwarzenegger vehicle Predator starring Adrien Brody, of all people.

With few exceptions—Russell Crowe, Hugh Jackman—it’s hard to think of a leading man today who could credibly go toe to toe with Rocky or Indiana Jones. A participant at Arts & Faith puts the blame on The Matrix, which transformed Keanu Reeves from a pasty computer geek into an instant superman by digitally uploading kung-fu skills into his brain. With its video-game milieu, The Matrix in a way set the stage for Scott Pilgrim.

But last weekend even Scott Pilgrim‘s target demographic of young males overwhelmingly chose The Expendables, an old-school action flick starring a bunch of guys who in many cases were making movies like this before Michael Cera was born, along with many in the audience. Director/star/co-writer Stallone anchors the he-man ensemble, which includes Dolph Lundgren, Mickey Rourke, Jet Li and Eric Roberts as well as the likes of Jason Statham, Terry Crews, Randy Couture and Steve Austin.

Even Ah-nold and Bruce Willis show up in cameos. Notable by their absence are Steven Segal, Van Damme and Kurt Russell—all of whom were offered parts, but turned them down. According to Wikipedia, Van Damme felt there was “no substance” to his character. Uh oh. (Have you seen a Van Damme film?)

Van Damme also reportedly told Stallone that he should “be trying to save people in South Central.” Why South Central? No idea, but whatever he was thinking, the notion of what they “should” be doing doesn’t seem to have figured prominently in Stallone’s thinking about the film, which wastes as little time as possible on plot and character in order to allow the maximum possible number of throat slittings, bodies blown in half, heads impaled, severed and broken limbs, bullet-riddled torsos, etc.

If many of today’s action heroes seem lacking in convincing virility, The Expendables is hardly the healthy jolt of masculinity one might wish for. It’s a movie that panders to all of the worst excesses of the 1980s and none of its better instincts. It’s egregious violence pornography, not only soaked in explicit, gratuitous, bone-crunching, blood-spurting violence, but a movie that sees the whole world through the lens of violence, a movie that presents violence as a worldview.

Manhood is seen solely through the lens of the ability to inflict and endure extreme amounts of punishment involving large numbers of opponents. To be a woman is to have essentially one meaningful choice: to be aligned with the wrong man, who will abuse or at least fail to protect you, or with the right man, who will rain vengeance on the wrong man and those around him. (An alliance with the wrong man may also result in sexual menace, torture, etc.)

Moral concerns are so far from the the film that in the long bloodbath that is the final act the woman whom the heroes are supposedly out to rescue becomes a secondary concern as the body count and property damage piles up. Even the villains’ crimes are less important to the heroes than the real question, which is who can kick whose butt? The way two heroes casually banter at the end after jointly killing the villain, not about his fate, but about which of them deserves credit for the kill, is indicative of this almost total indifference to any moral outlook. By contrast, as trashy and cartoony as a movie like Rambo: First Blood Part II was, you always remembered it was about POWs.

Neither The Expendables nor Scott Pilgrim offers us action heroes in the mold of, say, Harrison Ford or Gregory Peck—actors well known for portraying men of honor as well as strength. Peck in The Guns of Navarone or The Big Country, Ford in The Fugitive or Clear and Present Danger—either of them was ten times the man Stallone is in The Expendables.

Who in our day is capable of stepping into their shoes? Try to think of a leading man of today—someone in his prime, not an older star, but one who looks like a man, not a boy—who projects decency and uprightness as well as the physical capacity to fight for what he believes in.

Jackman might, if he can ever step out from behind Wolverine’s shadow. Russell Crowe can do anything, but he isn’t getting any younger. Antonio Banderas has played a couple of heroes (Spy Kids and The Mask of Zorro), but I’m not sure he can do gravitas. Same with the cherubic Brendan Frasier: He’s a comic action hero.

Denzel Washington and Samuel L. Jackson are too old. Laurence Fishburne has gotten too fat. Ben Affleck lacks charisma. Christian Bale just pulls off Batman, but it feels like a strain. He was good in Rescue Dawn, and I didn’t see Terminator Salvation. He’s a possibility, I guess.

Comments

After “Man on Fire” I have lost all desire to watch Denzel Washington. Talk about violence torture-porn all vengeful and then at the end he tells the little girl he’s gonna see her in heaven! That movie seriously tainted Denzel for me and I feel I can no longer trust his judgment as far as his ability to choose roles or be a positive role model.

Good article though, I’d have to agree on most points.

Posted by Manly Tough Man on Sunday, Sep 5, 2010 3:17 PM (EDT):

Its clear that no human can actually be compared to Chuck Norris

Posted by Manly Tough Man on Sunday, Sep 5, 2010 3:14 PM (EDT):

I forgot to mention Justin Bieber

Posted by Manly Tough Man on Sunday, Sep 5, 2010 3:10 PM (EDT):

I like some of these peoples remarks(joye,Jonathan,Victor Marton)
Im Ignoring the under 50 perameter because its a stupid restriction!!

Personally I prefer Stupid Comedy Actors to Action guys. But that would entail a whole other list

Posted by Brooke Bartosh on Friday, Aug 27, 2010 7:58 PM (EDT):

At the risk of revealing my girlish crush, I’m going to back up whoever nominated Joseph Gordon-Levitt. It’s not easy to transition from being a child star to an adult actor and victor isn’t the only one who still sees him as Tommy Solomon, but JGL seems determined and fully capable of being a great actor. He’s shown remarkable versatility in several lesser-known films and I hope he’ll get more of the recognition he deserves from Inception. I thought his character in “Brick” was manly without being brutish and he gets the James Bond award for fighting in a three-piece suit in Inception!

Posted by Kyle on Friday, Aug 27, 2010 4:29 PM (EDT):

I think Don Cheadle has the acting potential to be mentioned. I thought he did a good job in Traitor. Whether he has the mustard, to take a leading role in a big flick hasn’t been tested. It’s a possibility at least.

Posted by Maggie on Friday, Aug 27, 2010 12:19 PM (EDT):

We are lacking greatly in anything worth viewing from Hollywood in the first place. There are some actors that could be manly men but they bow to the garbage and therefore portray men that are truly lacking in what it means to be a man. Part of all this nonsense to me is linked to the pill and the feminist movement. Sex without consequences lets men stay in the Peter Pan stage for much longer if they ever have to leave it. They can remain little self-centered boys. The feminist movement has emasculated men to such an extent that all they are left with to feel somewhat manly is testosterone gone wild film nonsense. The inmates are running the psych hospital.

Posted by pamela williams on Wednesday, Aug 25, 2010 8:28 PM (EDT):

I have always admired TCM matinee idols such as Gregory Peck with their ruggedly handsome good looks, but I find that more recent actors like Clint Eastwood in Grand Torino, Russell Crowe in The Gladiator, and more recently, Matt Damon in the Bourne trilogy to fall into that catagory…just a little different!

Posted by Nicholas on Wednesday, Aug 25, 2010 3:28 PM (EDT):

How about Nicolas Cage? I’m thinking about his roles in the two National Treasure movies where his character is a scholarly, patriotic, action hero. There is no swearing, gratuitous violence or steamy sex. They were movies which I enjoyed watching with my teenager son. His latest, The Scorcer’s Apprentice, is quite good in this regard. I also liked his role in Family Man, which does portray admirable aspects of fatherhood.

Posted by Jeff on Wednesday, Aug 25, 2010 2:50 AM (EDT):

I second Karl Urban. Sadly, he has only appeared in supporting parts (Star Trek, The Bourne Supremacy, Lord of the Rings) and one notoriously horrible B-movie (Pathfinder). However, I think he has the makings of a solid male action hero in the traditional mold.

@Man of La Mancha: Of course FMA and Lagann are going to receive mention, just who the heck do you think I am! 8) hmmm, what ASCII character best represents Kamina’s glasses….
Sadly it seems the manly art of combination has been gravely misunderstood in recent times. Are there any good movies out right now that celebrate male friendship and camaraderie?

Posted by Baron Korf on Tuesday, Aug 24, 2010 5:11 PM (EDT):

How about Karl Urban? I liked him in LotR, Riddick, and was the only redeeming part of Doom. He’s got the well roundedness in my opinion, he just needs better parts.

Posted by Man of La Mancha on Tuesday, Aug 24, 2010 1:25 PM (EDT):

It warms my heart to see that this thread didn’t end before FMA: Brotherhood and Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann received mention.

“It’s a man’s passion that burns white-hot! Gaze upon the manly art of combination!”

The Rock and Vin Diesel? There was also one other guys, who I’ve seen in a recent Hollywood action movie…takes place in New Orleans. For the life of me, I cannot remember the name of the movie. I saw him in a trailer of a really awesome looking movie on my Letters to God dvd. Whomever this guy is, I think he portrays the modern American action-hero, what’s left of the goodness of our country. Please some some help me out here…

Posted by Jonathan on Tuesday, Aug 24, 2010 4:02 AM (EDT):

Nick:

To be honest, I was a huge John Wayne fan when I was a teenager and still love his movies. In fact, you listed my favorite John Wayne films in order (except replace true grit with “The Cowboys” and the Shootist with “Sands of Iwo Jima”). I own all the films you mentioned. I guess, for me personally, my trying to imitate John Wayne was not a good thing because, no matter how good John Wayne’s character was, I was always imitating a violent, prideful, man. While I’m not one to say that violence and pride are never necessary, I probably would have been better off imitating Peter Parker’s acceptance of responsibility rather than John Wayne’s rough and tough demeanor.

Posted by Edward Ortiz on Tuesday, Aug 24, 2010 1:04 AM (EDT):

Victor, I’ll agree with you on the lead actress Gabrielle Anwar from BURN NOTICE. She is not appealing in the slightest. I’ll take Yvonne Strahovski from CHUCK any day. (BTW, if you are sensing a theme here, it is because CHUCK is the only comedy or drama I watch on television with great passion. I’ll watch BURN NOTICE, HOUSE, ROYAL PAINS or MYTHBUSTERS, but if I miss an episode it is no big deal.)

I have a theory about why so many actors chosen look like teenagers, but keep looking like teenagers when they get older. How manhood has been defined in Hollywood has changed dramatically. It is no secret that Hollywood trends very much to the left on the political scheme. And since the left has been trying to diminish men and traditional manhood/fatherhood younger actors or younger looking actors are chosen who then portray men, manhood and fatherhood in a very unflattering light. Many of the films in recent years often portray young men as foolish, incompetent, impotent, domineering, selfish, boorish, self-important, cowardly, vulgar and disgusting. Essentially, they are shown as unnecessary.

John Wayne, Gregory Peck and many others from the bygone days played roles where men were decent, honorable, competent, virtuous (sometimes properly, sometimes crudely, but virtuous, nonetheless), courageous, protective, fatherly and moral. They were strong, tough, dependable and pinnacles of American Manhood. They were easily unrealistic, but they certainly gave us all good role models. Even if none could ever match the impossible standards displayed in the movies or on television, striving for that standard made better persons of us all.

The current actors might have been chosen to portray men as young and stupid to young teens and 20 somethings who then view it as validation and encouragement to continue to act like total morons.

Now, I do not believe that it is the only reason for these actor choices, but I do believe it could be one of the reasons. Certainly, appealing to a target demographic with money is a big reason. But why not offer more mature looking and acting characters and actors? Why must these actors all look like 19 year old’s and who all act like complete doofuses?

I’ll second what Johnathan had to say. While I enjoy a good action movie, my favourite heroic characters tend to be the ones who go from (mental)boyhood to manhood. I’ve also noticed that these characters tend to be more prevalent in TV shows than movies, given the wider timeframe in which to tell their story. Some recent favourites are:
•Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
•Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood (probably my favourite out of the bunch. Ed goes from a hotheaded “bratty kid who swears a lot” to a strong, humbler heroic man in a nice gradual fashion, rather than one key moment)
•One Piece (perseverance and hope let you take 4-ton hammers to the face!)
•Tengen Toppa Gurren Lagann (perseverance and hope let you fly giant robots!)
•Avatar: the Last Airbender (thanks to the manly mentor Uncle Iroh)

3 of those are Japanese animated shows, and the other two are heavily inspired by that genre. Do the Japanese have another Toshiro Mifune they could send us?*

Posted by victor on Monday, Aug 23, 2010 6:08 PM (EDT):

I definitely was not talking about reading homosexuality into pre-20th-century stories of friendship (Classics Major here). But at some point when you’re watching 2-hours of topless guys with denuded, oiled-up chests, battle it out, you really have to ask yourself if the story of friendship isn’t maybe taking a back seat to something else (the medium is the massage, indeed!).

Posted by Victor Morton on Monday, Aug 23, 2010 5:04 PM (EDT):

Discussion question: at what point along the continuum of steroid imbibement does celebrating manliness cross the line into homoeroticism (“300”)?

In case of THE 300, never. And particularly in a society where (1) for better or worse, anti-gay taboos hardly exist; and (2) we feel a sniggering “need” and a smugly-superior desire to sexualize everything.

Sorry, original “other Victor” ... but one of my pet peeves is reading homosexuality in the modern-sense into pre-20th-century stories of friendship and “virtu.” Even the undoubtedly-engaging-in-their-unspeakable-vice ancient Greeks were not “gay-friendly.”

Posted by victor on Monday, Aug 23, 2010 4:57 PM (EDT):

I can’t respect Jeffrey Donovan in particular or “Burn Notice” in general. Their female lead is the most unappealing actress I’ve just about ever seen (no offense). Also Jeffrey Donovan is a ponce… I read a magazine article on him and how he manages to keep in shape and he said something about how he never drinks, except to have a light beer once in a while and then two months later he was busted for DUI. I keep hoping they come out with a DVD containing all of (and only) Bruce Campbell’s scenes from that show. Until then, I’m going to stick with watching “My Name is Bruce” and “Bubba Ho-Tep”.

@Other victor (in regards to people eschewing or outgrowing the “manliness” of Stallone and Schwartzenegger in the 1980s): Discussion question: at what point along the continuum of steroid imbibement does celebrating manliness cross the line into homoeroticism (“300”)?

+1 for Clint in “Gran Torino”. Manliest movie role in ages. “Get off my lawwwwnnnnnn.”

Posted by Peter on Monday, Aug 23, 2010 8:36 AM (EDT):

I know he doesn’t meet the cut off age, but Clint, in Grand Torino was supurb!

Posted by Edward Ortiz on Monday, Aug 23, 2010 2:44 AM (EDT):

Bruce Campbell maybe over 50, but he still looks like he could give most men his age a good whoopin’. Actually, he looks like he could give most men half his age a good whoopin’. And he could do it without Sam Raimi or the chainsaw.

Since the cut off point is 50 years of age Adam Baldwin still qualifies. I am a big fan of the television series Chuck and the muscles Baldwin sports could be used to take out a few small countries. I wish I looked half that good. He could even take on Arnold Schwarzenegger and win after a good and long battle.

Now since Campbell is over 50 I then nominate Jeffrey Donovan also from Burn Notice. He may be thinner, but is pretty imposing and looks like a coiled snake ready to strike.

Posted by Victor Morton on Sunday, Aug 22, 2010 10:11 PM (EDT):

“Robert Duvall is so old that his latest role was playing a walking corpse.”

Actually the deadest thing in that movie is the script.

Posted by Victor Morton on Sunday, Aug 22, 2010 10:05 PM (EDT):

I’d be curious what you think, Steve, of this piece (http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/lgrin/2010/08/11/bring-on-the-expendables-i-was-a-teenage-expendable/) in Big Hollywood about a week ago where Leo Grin (one of the best writers and critics at that site) makes the point that 80s action movies, like other movies generally, were not swallowed whole. Their audiences, speaking generally, knew that Schwarzenegger and Stallone were ... ahem ... ideal types. But like having to aim high in archery to hit the bull’s eye, they still served to fire masculine virtue.

Key quote:
“Largely left out of the analysis, though, is the more sensible side of the coin. The vast majority of boys who marinated themselves in the action films of the 1980s dreamed of being mighty and indomitable like Sly and Arnold, yes, but unlike the outliers of Bigger, Stronger, Faster*, they left those fantasies behind as they grew older and mortality set in. Nevertheless — and this is the important part — they retain to this day some healthy inner fire of masculinity from those pictures that’s served them well in their adult lives.
“How many men serving with distinction and bravery in our armed forces can trace the genesis of their decision to enlist to Rambo or Commando? How many fathers who’ve fought off intruders in their homes can credit their successful defense of their families to martial arts and weapons training undertaken when they were teens in thrall to “silly” cinematic heroes? How many guys who’ve rescued people trapped in floods or fires or raging rivers did so by calling on notions of courage hammered into their heads over two decades ago, and using muscles once built by youthful sessions of pumping iron in rooms decorated by large posters featuring stern action heroes gazing down on their efforts like dark demi-gods?”

Posted by victor on Sunday, Aug 22, 2010 10:02 PM (EDT):

Sadly, Bruce Campbell is over 50. In 2 years, so will Adam Baldwin be. Robert Duvall is so old that his latest role was playing a walking corpse. :|

Posted by Tom H on Sunday, Aug 22, 2010 8:51 PM (EDT):

“Daniel Craig has the manliness, but from what I’ve seen so far he tends more toward the amoral Expendables end of the spectrum than the honorable Gregory Peck end. I’d like to see him do something different.”

Then I commend unto you Craig’s performance in “Sword of Honour”, based on Evelyn Waugh’s trilogy. Available on Netflix. Guy Crouchback is not Gregory Peck (whom I always found to be too sanctimonious by half), but the character is (wait for it) honorable.

Posted by D. G. D. Davidson on Sunday, Aug 22, 2010 6:36 PM (EDT):

Wow, this article is great. I’ve seen others complaining that there aren’t enough manly men in the movies these days, but you’ve also pointed out that the “manly men” that are depicted have problems, too. You make exactly the points I was struggling to make when I wrote on the same subject: http://www.scificatholic.com/2010/08/my-granddad-can-lick-your-granddad.html

Posted by Brady on Sunday, Aug 22, 2010 5:59 PM (EDT):

I vote for Optimus Prime. Yup, he wins.

Posted by Mack Hall on Sunday, Aug 22, 2010 10:40 AM (EDT):

Has no one a word to spare for John Bannerman as Sergeant Schultz?

(As John Wayne said to Jimmy Steward in TMWSLV, “Whoa, take ‘er easy there, pilgrim.” Just havin’ a little fun.)

Posted by Blake Helgoth on Sunday, Aug 22, 2010 10:34 AM (EDT):

OK, no-one has mentioned Robert Duvall! He is getting old, but does anyone come across as more of a man? He is not a pretty boy, but he ussualy plays courageous characters - hero characters.

Posted by Edward Ortiz on Sunday, Aug 22, 2010 2:53 AM (EDT):

Has anyone mentioned Bruce Campbell?

I know most of his films trend towards action comedy, but his work on Burn Notice is worth watching. He plays the serious and strong action figure role very well, indeed.

Posted by Nick Milne on Sunday, Aug 22, 2010 12:33 AM (EDT):

Jonathan: To be clear, I agree with you (and I laud you for your film!); I was just surprised by that particular point, is all.

Also, while we’re on the subject, I’ve got to wonder what John Wayne roles you had in mind when lumping him in there, too. Maybe in some of his cheaper, lazier movies that holds true, but in his most famous work he’s nothing of the sort that you so rightly condemn. Let’s look at the highlight reel:

- The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance: He seems that way, at first, “solving” Jimmy Stewart’s problem with bullets, but the toll that this takes on him becomes apparent as the film progresses. While he acts like the swaggering hero of yore, the story complicates that perspective significantly, and very much on purpose. We learn quickly that the reward for this sort of life is nothing more or less than a lonely pine box and nobody at the funeral.

- The Searchers: More damaged than powerful, his character in this is motivated by a crippling lust for revenge that undercuts every ounce of his otherwise dazzling competence and determination. He may finally come to realize that sometimes you just have to let go and forgive, but it’s a very hard road in getting there.

- The Quiet Man: Sean Thornton may seem like the smooth, assured fellow he presents himself as being, but there’s a tremendous guilt at the back of his life that renders him incapable of relating to people - male or female - in anything approaching the proper way. He has to overcome his (basically legitimate) fear if he’s going to do the right thing, and the consequences are the stuff of legend.

- True Grit: Rooster Cogburn is about as far from your perfect, totally competent manly ideal as it’s possible to get. He’s a broken-down old drunk who has to be taught about real masculine virtue by a little girl, if you can believe it, and finally comes into his own once he learns to care for something other than himself.

- The Shootist: This comes the closest to being what you describe, but it shows what it’s like for such a man in his declining years. Like The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, it complicates our conception of the powerful, competent, violent male hero by showing just how awful it can make their lives in the long run, and how nigh-impossible it makes the quest for a final peace.

It’s true that The Duke was in hundreds of films, so I’ll freely concede that there’s a likelihood he portrayed the sort of character you describe at some point, but in his major works… I’m just not seeing it. This, again, is not to detract from your point on the whole; I think it’s both important and well-made. I just object to some of your examples.

“Seriously, though, I’d like a clarification, if you don’t mind. Are you simply saying you would find it aesthetically preferrable for male action leads to have more prominent cheekbones, or do you see reason for correlating this with manliness?”

Haven’t these questions been sufficiently addressed in the combox. See esp. Victor Morton’s and my comments in response to Joye. Is there an angle I’m missing? Cheers.

Nick: Did I say Scarlett Johanssen? I must have been thinking of someone else, like Kiera Knightley or Gwyneth Paltrow. Oh, I see I mentioned them too. Well, there’s lots of others to choose from ... like Sandra Bullock and Kate Hudson ... I must have been thinking of Scarlett as a counter-example. I’m sure that’s it. Yeeaaah.

Posted by Jonathan on Saturday, Aug 21, 2010 11:12 PM (EDT):

While I may have misread Han-Solo’s character, the point I am trying to make is that I find simpler geeky characters who make a change for the better easier to relate to than say a lean-mean killing machine.

Posted by Nick Milne on Saturday, Aug 21, 2010 10:08 PM (EDT):

That is, “by his own very literal admission.” Alas.

Posted by Nick Milne on Saturday, Aug 21, 2010 10:07 PM (EDT):

Jonathan:

But Han Solo isn’t the sort of male character you’re condemning at all. At no point could he be said to “have it made,” and, far from being perfect, he’s almost catastrophically imperfect, at least at first. He’s a liar and a scoundrel who casts off his obligations, fails to fulfill contracts, runs at the first sign of trouble. He’s looking out for himself, but his own very literal admission, and the rest of the world can just get out of his way.

Crucially, though, he’s improving all the time. At the end of A New Hope, he didn’t have to stay and help Luke on the trench run. He had his money; he could get out of Dodge and never worry about it again. But no - his time in the presence of Obi-Wan (who was a real man) and Luke (who was on track to become one) has rubbed off on him, and he comes roaring back at great personal risk.

Han’s transformation from a shiftless, nihilistic smuggler to a sincere patriot and hero is one of the defining narrative arcs of the original trilogy. I’m astounded that someone could so comprehensively misread it.

Posted by Nick Milne on Saturday, Aug 21, 2010 9:58 PM (EDT):

“...Beanpoles like… Scarlett Johansson”

Good grief, Steve; are we looking at the same person? I’ve heard Scarlett Johansson called many things, but “a beanpole” isn’t one of them.

As for the subject at hand, most of the folks I’d suggest have been covered. I really have nothing to add beyond my incredulity at the statement above and my general agreement with the drift of this article and the comments thereupon.

Posted by Jonathan on Saturday, Aug 21, 2010 9:05 PM (EDT):

I am a 20 year old male college student. My friends and I just finished making an independent film in which the main character is a lazy 18 year old boy who has no idea what he wants to do with his life. We wanted to make the film an illustration of what it means to be a man. We did not send our main character on a grand adventure. We did not give him superpowers. We did not show his transformation into a gruff, muscular, never-back-down masculine hero. No. The climax of our film was when our main character decided to clean his room, mow the lawn, write a book, and do his homework.

Having just survived my adolescence, I can say that the typical “musclebound, lantern-jawed he-men like” characters in my favorite movies did very little to teach me what it is like to be a man. The problem with presenting these characters as models of masculinity is this: Outwardly, being a man is far less glorious than a John Wayne gunfight or a Stallone boxing match. True masculinity is found in doing one’s duty, no matter how unimportant or trivial it seems. Manhood is defined by how hard one tries, not how great his result is.

For this reason, I find the geeky, confused teenager who learns how to master his super-powers or the loser who finds the courage to approach the girl he loves to be far more manly than a Han-Solo-esque character who has it made. A true man is constantly becoming more of a man… and these less-than-perfect characters are trying very hard to progress. Contrast this with supposedly heroic characters who already know everything and have no room for improvement because they are “men.” Seems mighty unrealistic to me.

Posted by Lorraine Shaw on Saturday, Aug 21, 2010 7:53 PM (EDT):

What a pleasure to read intelligent, well-thought out comments (for a change). My only negative comment would be that some are mixing up actors with movie stars….actors love their craft and are not pay-day types..one example is that fine actor Denzel Washington who after he was ridiculously awarded an Academy Award for Training Day (that rightfully belonged to Russell Crowe for A Beautiful Mind) followed up with a series of cop and robber pay-day movies. My vote for today’s best living actor (of any age) is Russell Crowe.
P.S. Does anybody even remember Training Day? Cheers

Posted by Jon W on Saturday, Aug 21, 2010 2:58 PM (EDT):

In any case, Frederica Mathewes-Green has a slightly different and excellent take on the childishness of many modern stars: www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles6/MathewesGreenBoomers.php

Posted by Jon W on Saturday, Aug 21, 2010 2:33 PM (EDT):

I like Chow Yun-fat a lot. His characters in Anna and the King and, especially, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, seemed to me to be everything that is wise, gentle, brave, kind, and 100% competent masculinity. He’s got the gravitas that Jackie Chan (as much as I like him) lacks, and just seems to have more substance to him than Jet Li, who always comes across to me like his character in The Collar. I haven’t seen much of Chow’s Hong Kong stuff, so maybe the two roles I mentioned were anomalies, but compared to so many you mentioned, he’s awesome.

Seriously, though, I’d like a clarification, if you don’t mind. Are you simply saying you would find it aesthetically preferrable for male action leads to have more prominent cheekbones, or do you see reason for correlating this with manliness? If the latter, what evidence is there? Does it seem to you that action stars with youthful faces generally ARE afraid to “get down and dirty” in addition to being too cute? In other words, is a baby face a liability in a fight?

Alternatively, one might rephrase your complaint as “Hollywood he-men are a bit older now on average than they used to be.” I don’t see what makes this a problem. Sometimes there’s still life in the old bones, maybe even with brains thrown into the mix. If you can combine that two-fistedness a man needs to make a hit with teenage male moviegoers with the depth the ladies go for, there’s really no stopping you. I would back a fifty-year-old Russel Crowe against a thirty-year-old Harrison Ford any day.

In any case, at some point we should all stop watching movies and go exercise or read a book. Best option: work out with a punching bag and lift weights while reading War and Peace. Whatever you do, however, stay away from swimming (where serious practicioners shave their body hair) and topics relating to computers. Video games are barely forgivable, and programming and web design are the kiss of death.

Posted by Tony Layne on Saturday, Aug 21, 2010 2:16 AM (EDT):

And just because no one else has said it: Kiefer Sutherland.

I have a lot of respect for Kiefer as an actor who can play either good guy or villain with equal facility (like his dad, in that respect). But I don’t know that he has the presence to carry a movie as THE lead. But he’s definitely manly!

Posted by Edward Ortiz on Saturday, Aug 21, 2010 2:15 AM (EDT):

I suggest Adam Baldwin (Jayne Cobb in Firefly and Serenity; currently starring as Colonel John Casey on the television series Chuck). He has some of John Wayne’s presence mixed with plenty of Clint Eastwood’s gravely voice. And he doesn’t look like he just entered the tenth grade. Bruce Greenwood (The Core, Star Trek) could also be a credible action hero.

Regarding Ford and other older actors: If you go back and watch some of the early films or tv series of Harrison Ford, William Shatner and even Sylvester Stallone they all looked youthful, but they never looked like teenagers. They were all credible looking young adults. Today, not one of them looks exactly like they did back then.

The current trend, however, is to hire actors who look like teenagers today and will still look like teenagers in thirty years. I really hate this trend. I’m not trying to push these actors out of Hollywood, but I dislike the idea that in a few years all the fifty year old leading men will still look (and act) like they just graduated high school.

Posted by victor on Saturday, Aug 21, 2010 1:39 AM (EDT):

Seriously, though, who better to play a character named “Mutt Williams” than Shia LaBeouf? Any more respectable actor would have had their career ruined by the part.

“But when it came time to give Harrison Ford a son (and possible successor) in the newest Indiana Jones film, who did the filmmakers cast? Shia LaBeouf.”

Oh, zing! Brilliant example, Peter. Wish I’d mentioned it. May go back and work it in!

Posted by Peter T Chattaway on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 6:24 PM (EDT):

For what it’s worth, I’ve been a fan of Gerard Butler’s ever since Dear Frankie, where he definitely played a rugged masculine type who also happens to be good with kids. I can’t say I’ve liked any of his more recent films, but he was so good in Dear Frankie (or was it only his character?) that I keep hoping for more in that vein.

The comments about Harrison Ford remind me of how the producers of Witness—Ford’s first major non-Lucasfilm hit—cast him because they were looking for a new Gary Cooper. Specifically, they said they needed to cast an actor who would look good in a hat (in this case, an Amish-style hat) the same way Gary Cooper had.

But when it came time to give Harrison Ford a son (and possible successor) in the newest Indiana Jones film, who did the filmmakers cast? Shia LaBeouf.

Posted by Rachel on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 6:12 PM (EDT):

Victor: touche. ;) I think of him as a decent actor, but it may be because most of the movies where he does his best are movies where I had astronomically low expectations (“Oh my gosh, ‘Dracula 2000’ doesn’t completely stink, and neither does the acting! Hey, Butler’s singing voice was TERRIBLE on the Phantom soundtrack, but his acting isn’t nearly as bad!”)

Posted by David B. on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 6:10 PM (EDT):

“Christian Bale just pulls off Batman, but it feels like a strain.”

Maybe. But for me, this is not true at all for Batman Begins, and, perhaps, only partly true of The Dark Knight ‘cause of all that post-production voice enhancement. Bale and Russell Crowe own the rest of the guys when it comes to commanding personalities and a forceful presence. When they’re are on screen, you know that you will get something worth your time. (Aside for T4 and Robin hood)

Posted by victor on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 6:01 PM (EDT):

It’s still hard for me to see Joseph Gordon Levitt as anything other than little Tommy Solomon. I’ll take your word for it that he’s not Keanu 2.0, though!

Posted by Luke Shea on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 5:44 PM (EDT):

I’ll second Toshiro Mifune. He’s not just a man, he’s THE MAN. I mean, he’s no good for our current discussion, but it might make you feel better to ponder his manliness for a minute.

As for today’s actors, I’d say you’re spot on about Jackman. My nomination goes to a hypothetical future Joseph Gordon Levitt. He hasn’t really done the action hero thing yet, but I think he’s got the charm and the build, and now that the public at large is getting used to him in dramatic roles (At long last!) with the release of Inception, we might see him in more big-budget films. His next movie (Premium Rush) is supposed to be one giant chase/action sequence. I guess we should wait to see how that turns out before getting our hopes up. But I basically think the man can do anything.

Posted by victor on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 5:44 PM (EDT):

I’m pretty sure “the Braveheart guy” is meant to be Angus Macfadyen, who more than proved his star potential with the walk-on part he played on last week’s “Psych”. He was also in Saws III and IV.

“Ideals are always idealized, and they are always portrayed by idealized types.”

Brilliantly said. Thanks, Victor M.

Posted by sibyl on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 4:45 PM (EDT):

Will Smith, definitely!

As for older guys, I’ve always thought Tommy Lee Jones was underrated—he was fantastic in the Fugitive. And although he’s older he’s a timeless older—Viggo Mortenson, who looks like a brainless Gap ad but turns out to be quite a fine actor.

Joye: Actually, I think the same sort of problem is very much reflected in the portrayal of women, who are all too often just as boyish and non-mature as the male heroes. Beanpoles like Kiera Knightley, Scarlett Johansson and Gwyneth Paltrow are to womanhood what Orlando Bloom and Tobey Maguire are to manhood.

Not to say that I don’t want leading ladies like Knightley or leading men like Bloom at all. But some men should look like Gregory Peck, and some women should look like Marilyn Monroe (who by today’s Hollywood standards would be considered plus-size!). And then of course some women should look like Queen Latifah, and some men should look like puffy Laurence Fishburne, and we can go from there.

And I would personally pay $100 to see any Pixar dad character (excluding Mr. Incredible) in an R-rated action movie. Marlin in particular. Maybe they could call it “KILL GILL” or something. “This summer: the SCALES of justice have a found new hero; one who is F’IN crazy.” (Cut to Marlin jumping out of an exploding building) “Yippee-ki-yay, Mother Flounder!”

Posted by Victor Morton on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 3:45 PM (EDT):

While I agree with Joye that it’s likelier that the problem is more in the scriptwriting than the casting, I don’t think it inappropriate to take actors’ looks into account.

Steve’s post was clearly about ideals of masculinity and how they’ve changed/decayed. Ideals are always idealized, and they are always portrayed by idealized types. Looks have never not been part of casting. Barbra Streisand cannot play a $500-an-hour hooker, except in a movie appropriately called “Nuts.” And it cuts all ways. On another film board yesterday I mused aloud that it was good that Lana Turner walked out of the role of the wife in ANATOMY OF A MURDER, because she was too much the pinup sex bomb for the role.

Posted by Donna Lewis on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 3:30 PM (EDT):

Is this only applicable to live action ? I’d note that several Pixar films have protective fathers or father-figures (Marlin, Bob Parr, Carl Fredericksen).
Also, in Disney’s “The Princess and the Frog” there is a wonderful hardworking father who dies as a war hero. His daughter, the heroine, constantly refers to him, and has adopted his dream as her own. The hero is a strong, handsome boy-man who does not win the heroine until he has shown a capacity for growth, courage, and self-sacrifice.

Posted by Victor Morton on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 3:21 PM (EDT):

“On the topic of action heroes, what about Gerard Butler?”

He’d have to learn to act.

Posted by joye on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 3:20 PM (EDT):

I know that films are a visual medium, but being a real man isn’t primarily about how you LOOK, is it?

It seems to me that we’re going at this backwards… maybe I’m excessively naive or idealistic, but shouldn’t we be trying for truly, authentically masculine ROLES and then let ANY good actor fill it? I mean, what does this idea about “Tell us which actors you think can play REAL MEN” say to men who genetically are thin and boyish, can’t grow a beard, etc? “Sorry, you’ll never be a REAL man, and don’t even think about trying to be a hero.”

Women have had to deal with unrealistic ideas of visual womanhood for SO long—I don’t want you men to fall into that trap either! To me this is the exact reverse of saying that Hollywood doesn’t show images of real womanhood (true!)—and then open up a discussion about which actresses have the necessary breast size and hip size and other secondary sexual characteristics to portay “real women”. It’s misses the point (which is about the scripts and the costumes and other things, not the body types of the players) and is a little disturbing, is what I"m saying!

Posted by Rachel on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 3:18 PM (EDT):

The Onion’s AV Club has a feature called “Commentary Tracks of the Damned” where they watch the commentaries of terrible movies to figure out where they went wrong. A recent one involved the commentary for “Boondock Saints 2: All Saints’ Day.” Apparently the director and lead actors consistently referred to any male character showing an emotion other than anger or contempt as a “homo queersicle.” This was coupled with some HIGHLY misogynistic comments about the film’s leading lady, Julie Benz, including the director’s description of his, er, physical reaction to seeing her in certain costumes. I think this mentality shows up far too often in action films.

On the topic of action heroes, what about Gerard Butler? 300 was certainly more on the amoral video-game end of the spectrum, but Gerard Butler showed that he has a convincing action-movie physique and a good level of charisma. He certainly isn’t there yet, but he has the potential to pull it off.

Posted by alipius on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 3:16 PM (EDT):

Clive Owen!

Posted by Gene Branaman on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 2:53 PM (EDT):

At least Scott Pilgrim is about a guy who’s just beginning to figure it all out & allow himself to grow up, be a man, however tentatively. We see everything from his video game/comic book/band member POV &, if the movie weren’t funny, it’d be a pathetic & depressing indictment of young manhood today. Because there are thousands of Scott Pilgrims out there today who have been coddled, not allowed to grow up or, worse, encouraged NOT to grow up, & who have no idea what it is to be a man, much less how to become one. Their roll models on TV & in the movies have all been weak, as has been pointed out in SGD’s article & in this thread, fathers are wimps & men only keep women back from *finding themselves*, a la Eat, Pray, Love. That, IMO, is a disheartening & frightening message. Is there 1 strong father figure on TV currently who isn’t cuckolded by his wife & helplessly befuddled by his children? Is there a father on TV who is self-sacrificing & actually gives advice worth taking in this teen-dominated culture? If so, I can’t name the show.

Scott Pilgrim is nowhere near perfect. (What’s the deal with H’wood movies these days making the most sexually experienced character dish out all the relationship advice? Scott’s gay roommate is shown in bed with at least 5 different guys - 3 at once, at one point - during the film & it’s his advice that the movie seems to want Scott to take as straight from the sexual gospel. Would you trust relationship advice about not dating 2 girls at once from someone who casually flits from one multiple-partner sexual encounter to another?) But the message of the film is that there comes a time for all guys to man up, treat women right, & give up being a kid. That’s not a message I’ve seen much at all in the last couple decades!

It reminds me of 1 Corinthians 13:11: “When I was a child, I used to talk as a child, think as a child, reason as a child; when I became a man, I put aside childish things.”

Posted by Mike in KC, MO on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 2:36 PM (EDT):

I don’t know what his name was, but I vote for the guy who played the Red Baron in the recent German made movie of the same name.

The actors who played major rolls in Blackhawk Down are good as well, when they are in the proper rolls.

Posted by Victor Morton on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 2:19 PM (EDT):

American-wise, I might have to disagree on Robert Downey Jr.

I disagree—I mean, I love Downey in the right roles, but he seems almost the prototype of the somewhat-grown-up boy whose dominance Steve is lamenting. (Maybe his off-screen life, or the fact I think his defining role to be LESS THAN ZERO, is influencing my judgment though.)

Idle quasi-Marxist thought: Could it be that this type of “manly hero” is simply an obsolete type in a world where few (native-born) American men perform manual labor or work the land? Indeed, one of John Ford’s great themes (see THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE and THE SEARCHERS, among others) is the passing on of this sort of hero in a civilized society? I found it interesting that the first two examples Steve came up with himself were Russell Crowe and Hugh Jackman—both Australians, where the national self-image includes a kind of pride in being a bit more rough-hewn than the rest of the rich West.

Posted by victor on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 1:35 PM (EDT):

I was going to mention Will Smith, too, but kept forgetting :-)

And I concede that you’re right and studio power can only take you so far (consider the case of Mario Van Peebles). My larger point was, we only get the milksop action heroes we have now because that’s who the studios are pushing on us. Maybe they’re afraid of masculinity (perhaps because, thanks to Stallone, they equate masculinity with violence as you mention above), who knows? It seems the only people allowed to be masculine in the movies these days are those who are to some degree “ethnic”.

And just because it must be said: a large part of the problem was that Brosnan kept getting saddled with pathetic villians and mawkish Bond girls… not to mention Joe Don Baker.

Joshua, thx for mentioning Will Smith, he’s definitely worth taking into account. I’ll probably add him to the discussion above.

Pat: The picture’s not that bleak! Good movies, good characters and good moral messages still exist. It’s one particular type of good character, the heroic leading man, that seems lacking today.

Posted by Pat on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 1:13 PM (EDT):

This is what happens when movies are geared to the teenage boy. Ahh, the “special effects”—rule the day not to forget car chases, fires, explosions,all types of weapons,—-but morality, honor—not to be found in Hollywood is it?
good characters and story writing? Also absent.

Posted by Joshua Fahey on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 12:31 PM (EDT):

I will always be eternally grateful to Will Smith for the number of times he has saved the world. In many of his movies he has also shown a heroic (possibly to a fault) perseverance.

Posted by Man of La Mancha on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 12:31 PM (EDT):

And then there’s Toshiro Mifune, Kurosawa’s great leading man. . .what a dude. Voice of thunder and a beard that defines masculinity.

Tony Jaa, from Thailand, has the muscles, and at least in Ong Bak he’s got a pretty good dose of decency (although the sheer amount of bone-crushing he does might dilute that a bit). . .and he just doesn’t come across as quite as noble/gentle as Jackie Chan in his best roles. Or even Jet Li, in the likes of Fearless.

American-wise, I might have to disagree on Robert Downey Jr. I thought he was as masculine and heroic as the best of them in Sherlock Holmes (with an extra edge of decency contributed by Jude Law as Watson). I actually like Van Helsing, mainly for Hugh Jackman’s preformance.

I’ll also second the vote for David Boreanz (as Seeley Booth in Bones) and Jensen Ackles from Supernatural.

And how many blockbusters has Steve Guttenberg opened, Victor? “Stars are made, not born” is at best a half truth. Some actors get all the necessary breaks, and everything looks good on paper, but the star power just isn’t there. On paper, Pierce Brosnan should have been a first-rate James Bond, while Daniel Craig could have been a Daltonesque also-ran. But Craig had it and Brosnan didn’t. If Jennifer Aniston had the star power, she’d be as big as Cameron Diaz. She isn’t. What does Damon have that Orlando Bloom hasn’t got? Damon is a leading man and Bloom isn’t. Fillon is a fine ensemble player, and could do a noble role, but can he hold the spotlight on the big screen? We just don’t know at this point, do we?

Posted by victor on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 12:09 PM (EDT):

Stars are made, not born (Steve Guttenberg, anyone?). If the studios could get behind (or could be gotten to get behind) the maturely-macho Gregory Peckian/Walter Pidgeonean/Kirk Douglaseon ideal, then there’s any number of male stars who could fit the bill even beyond the few I just mentioned—heck even Tom Welling (“Smallville”) or Jensen Ackles (“Supernatural”) could be made into a star if a studio got behind them.

Howard: Ah, but Legolas and Gimli’s competition involves killing ORCS, not humans, and Tolkien makes it VERY clear that orcs are in a totally different moral class than humans—in fact, they are more analogous to demons. Human enemies are taken prisoner, made to swear oaths of allegiance, released, etc. Orcs are to be butchered, period; they are irredeemably twisted and evil. Legolas and Gimli would never casually banter about killing any of the free peoples of Middle Earth.

Victor: I agree that Nathan Fillon, Alan Tudyk, or David Boreanaz could play a heroic character; whether they have the star power to become an icon remains to be seen.

Posted by victor on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 11:48 AM (EDT):

Personally, I blame all the progesterone in our water supply.

Most of the “strong, mature, non-metrosexual” roles for men seem, though, to be on television these days (Matthew Fox and Josh Halloway from “Lost” come to mind, as does Tim McKay from “White Collar”).

In terms of action movies, I think Nathan Fillon, Alan Tudyk, or David Boreanaz could carry a picture on their own, were they given a chance.

Posted by Dan on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 11:42 AM (EDT):

Yes, a lot of the “leading men” of today have a bit of a feminine character…or at least seem too cute and are more popular with the ladies than the men. I like Christian Bale in everything I’ve seen him in but I don’t know if he is “a man’s man” candidate. I can’t think of anyone better suited, though.

Posted by Jo on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 11:38 AM (EDT):

With due respect to your friend, Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine in the first XMEN movie was not just a breakout role for him ( his first movie actually in Hollywood, following an introduction to international audiences in the stage musical Oklahoma! in London) but he did walk away with the entire franchise. Yes, he is still portraying the screen Wolverine, but he is iconic in the role. Harrison Ford portrayed Indiana Jones a number of times, too. But it was his eventual branching out to other types of roles which solidified his screen reputation. Hugh however has started to portray not just strong, decent men on screen but also “amoral” characters ( Deception, Scoop, even The Prestige). If things work out, he might also get to portray the racist sheriff Jim Clark in the movie SELMA. His future projects also include two movie musicals ( Carousel and an original one on Barnum). He is probably working towards a screen career that shows off his talent and versatility rather than being identified with only a certain kind of screen persona.

Posted by Howard on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 11:33 AM (EDT):

“The way two heroes casually banter at the end after jointly killing the villain, not about his fate, but about which of them deserves credit for the kill, is indicative of this almost total indifference to any moral outlook.” Like Legolas and Gimli in that long book by Tolkien which has so often been noted for its “almost total indifference to any moral outlook”? (Don’t try to say, “Oh, but OTHER PARTS of the book show Lord of the Rings moral outlook.” If keeping score makes the movie amoral, it makes the book amoral, too. Or maybe you’re just wrong and it says nothing about either.)

Daniel Craig has the manliness, but from what I’ve seen so far he tends more toward the amoral Expendables end of the spectrum than the honorable Gregory Peck end. I’d like to see him do something different.

Viggo Mortensen is another one who’s just getting old. My working cutoff was 50, which today means born no earlier than 1960. Mortensen was born in 1958, which means he was under 50 during LOTR, but not any more.

Yes, I love Russell Crowe in Master and Commander. But Robin Hood was lousy, and it remains to be seen how many more heroic performances Crowe has in him.

Regarding Jackman: A friend of mine once noted that his breakout role in the X-Men movies could be compared to Harrison Ford’s role as Han Solo in the Star Wars films—but Ford didn’t come into his own until his solo star turn in Indiana Jones. Jackman is still stuck in Wolverine mode, even if he’s now making solo Wolverine films. Jackman’s Raiders is still waiting to be made.

Posted by Jo on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 10:27 AM (EDT):

I have to agree that Hugh Jackman’s characterization of the Drover in AUSTRALIA seemed to fit the bill of a classic leading man. He also shares with Gregory Peck the kind of elegant looks and manly charm that appeal to both men and women. But his talent and versatility give too many options for him to be limited to roles of strong leading men types. We saw a glimpse of that at the Oscar ceremonies and in movies like The Fountain and The Prestige.

Posted by Jim D. on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 10:12 AM (EDT):

I thought Hugh Jackman was great in Australia. My favorite “recent” movie hero though would have to be Viggo Mortensen in Lord of the Rings. But we definitely don’t have any Cary Grant’s, Gregory Peck’s, John Wayne’s or Gary Cooper’s in Hollywood right now.

Posted by Jeff on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 9:21 AM (EDT):

Hugh Jackman, AKA “Huge Jacked Man”, is manly indeed.

However, one of the most manly actors today is missing from the article’s final paragraph: Daniel Craig. He is truly a man’s man. In Casino Royale and Defiance, we see (at very least) flashes of that honor/strength combination.

FWIW, Russell Crowe in Master and Commander is one of the most realistic portrayals of a heroic male character that I have ever seen.

Posted by J.GRONDELSKI on Friday, Aug 20, 2010 9:10 AM (EDT):

Read MEN TO BOYS. Although Gary Cross can’t figure out why the phenomenon exists—and doesn’t want to disavow the trends of the 1960s that he admits have exacerbated it—he is spot on in recognizing that contemporary media (and not only) culture glorifies arrested development: males who are chronologically men but act, think, and comport themselves like boys, really teenagers. From obsession with webgames to the proclivity of young men today to denude themselves of body hair, the “stuck teenager” is very much alive, and not just on the silver screen.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Name:

Email:

Write your comment:

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

Notify me of follow-up comments.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Steven D. Greydanus

Steven D. Greydanus is film critic for the National Catholic Register and Decent Films, the online home for his film writing. He writes regularly for Christianity Today, Catholic World Report and other venues, and is a regular guest on several radio shows. Steven has contributed several entries to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, including “The Church and Film” and a number of filmmaker biographies. He has also written about film for the Encyclopedia of Catholic Social Thought, Social Science, and Social Policy. He has a BFA in Media Arts from the School of Visual Arts in New York, and an MA in Religious Studies from St. Charles Borromeo Seminary in Overbrook, PA. He is pursuing diaconal studies in the Archdiocese of Newark. Steven and Suzanne have seven children.